Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Debate on the Iraq war (3)

I am still not quite catching your exact answer to my question. You talk about having a dialogue with the Iraqi people. What then? It seems you might be saying we should just leave and let them fend for themselves. Are you saying that? What specifically should we do at the present time in terms of military policy? Remember... A lot of the Iraqi population is helping us build a good infrastructure and get the new government off the ground. It also does not seem plausible to me that the majority of the country would want a dictatorship or other totalitarian state. The people who support such things are the people who seek power in them, not the oppressed to be. What exactly should we do now? You also seem to be suggesting that I think the fact that Iraq was a dictatorship is a sole reason for my support of the Hussein regime overthrow. It's not what I have been saying. It is the totality of the things I listed that add up to the justification, except the Guld War I continuation consequence alone was justification based on the Hussein regime's failure to meet their one way out. However, turning every dictatorship on Earth into a democracy would be a good thing. I just have some hesitation about saying, "Hey, let's go!" War is a very big deal. The Hussein regime did attempt to assassinate Bush, Sr. when he was out of office and visiting Kuwait. They also failed to meet the demand we placed on them to avoid continuation of Gulf War I. They were also a terrorist government that supported other terrorist organizations, which were sworn enemies of the United States. Therefore, the Hussein regime overthrow was not preemptive. One thing you and I will apparently continue to disagree on is the notion that sovereign governments who oppress their people are minding their own business. All innocent humans are equal, and no government has any business doing with them as they please. We do have a moral right to rescue the innocent._________________Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward... - John Kerry, 12/15/03

My Reply:

I understand you want our discussion to focus on the current situation in Iraq by discussing if anything can be done to improve it.
In your latest comments, you give one of the strongest argument for not withdrawing the coalition troops, the argument of avoiding "the worst scenario": Civil war, anarchy, and eventually a new form of authorian regime. Here are your first questions.

"I am still not quite catching your exact answer to my question. You talk about having a dialogue with the Iraqi people. What then? It seems you might be saying we should just leave and let them fend for themselves. Are you saying that? What specifically should we do at the present time in terms of military policy?"

My reply:

One thing is sure: By invading Iraq, overthrowing the Saddam Hussein regime and attempting a "de-Baathization" of Iraq by disolving both the Iraqi army and the Iraqi admnistration, the US-led coalition was setting up the base for a (temporary?) take-over of both political and military administration of the country in a highly centralized manner.
It made perfect sense for Colin Powel to declare a few months later: "Do you want us to hand over power to the Iraqis? Who ????" There wasn't (and still isn't much of) a group of Iraqis who could declare themselves ready to take resposability for the country's affairs. And then, it does make perfect sense to say that Iraq "needs" the coalition to help run the country for a few more years.

Before telling you what could be good initiatives to improve the situation on the ground, let me tell you once again:
1. The question of legitimacy of the political power is central to decision-making about the future of Iraq.
2. As we already discussed, the US-led invasion was not justified.
3. The anger and resentments of a growing number of Iraqis to Coalition forces come from this feeling that they are unfairly occupied by Foreign nations (with a different culture), the fact that this controversial occupation has led to a civil war (yes.. civil war) between those who are cooperating and those who are resisting the occupation, the fact that they suffer from a broad range of economic hardship in that context (hardship that may be even worse that during the Saddam H. rule), the fact that the US troops don't hesitate to use massive military resources to deal with the insurgency causing tens of thousand of civilian victims (killed by US gunfires only, see "www.iraqibodycount.net"), the fact that the US troops behaved like nazis at the Abu Grahim prison (at the very place where the Saddam regime used to torture Iraqi people).

Now, what should be done??!! Good question.
1. Acknowledging mistakes and war crimes against the Iraqi people: Punishing those responsible from the bottom (guilty soldiers) to the top (you see what I mean). So far, punishing soldiers was done to some extent. By no means, all of the war criminals have been put to shame. Remember that if Iraq had been invaded by a second-rank military power (say: Italy), the international communauty would have called this military power a "rogue country" and decided to isolate this country (and eventually attack this agressor militarily). The fact that USA is the sole military super-power of the world doesn't mean by itself that it has good ethical standards to decide when to wage a war "in the interest of the world".
2. Once this is done, you can expect more cooperation from the international communauty in the fields of peace-keeping, financial help to reconstruct Iraq etc.
3. Initiating a conference on Iraq by inviting both the coalition forces leaders, the Iraq "transition" government, the Iraqi insurgency leaders (if you don't invite them, they will not stop fighting any form of political power), other UN security council nations who would be present with a mediation role.

"Remember... A lot of the Iraqi population is helping us build a good infrastructure and get the new government off the ground. It also does not seem plausible to me that the majority of the country would want a dictatorship or other totalitarian state. The people who support such things are the people who seek power in them, not the oppressed to be. What exactly should we do now?"

My reply:

Yes, some Iraqis do help reconstruct THEIR country, and they do not wish to bear more anarchy and hardship. They just want to survive the current civil war. They have a pragmatic approach.
By no means you can consider this cooperation to be a proof that the majority of the Iraqis approved to see THEIR country invaded and occupied by foreign powers.
The US has no right to decide what kind of political regime the Iraqis want. Go and check in a dictionary what "democracy" means. Democracy is a political system ruled "by the people". If you define democracy by a political system "for the people" (ruling in the interest of the people even if the people disagree with its policies), you imply that the US knows better what is good or not good for Iraq that Iraqis. This way of thinking is, in essence, the source of imperialism (systematic domination and exploitation of a country by another country or an empire).

"You also seem to be suggesting that I think the fact that Iraq was a dictatorship is a sole reason for my support of the Hussein regime overthrow. It's not what I have been saying. It is the totality of the things I listed that add up to the justification, except the Guld War I continuation consequence alone was justification based on the Hussein regime's failure to meet their one way out."

My reply:

The totality of things didn't amount to a threat to USA. And that's what matters. Gulf war I was waged after the invasion of Koweit. Then came the 12 years of economic sanctions and tensions between the enforcement of the UN resolutions and the Saddam H. regime. During the months preceding the invasion of Iraq, the UN inspectors were allowed back into Iraq (thanks to US pressures, this is correct). They constantly denied the US assertions that "time was running out" and that they were not making any more progress. They were asking for more time. They were experts! Then the Bush administration starting to quote doubtful intelligence reports to justify an invasion.

"However, turning every dictatorship on Earth into a democracy would be a good thing. I just have some hesitation about saying, "Hey, let's go!" War is a very big deal. "

My reply:

Yes, absolutely. I agree with you. Another way to say this is: The consequences of starting a war against a dictatorship (not an aggressor) bring more injustice than justice. The costs are not worse the benefits (both in economic and in moral terms). Turning every dictatorship on Earth into a democracy is positive if it comes from the will of the citizens of this country.
No matter what, practically, these citizens can or cannot do to overthrow an authoritarian regime, it is unethical from a foreign nation to invade and pretend to rule in the interest of these citizens.
There is, off-course, a consensus that the case of genocide brings a moral dilemma for other nations: Either they interfere with this country's affairs (they will probably save many more lives that they will kill). Either they adopt the frustrating stance of watching a genocide unfold (but arguably they avoid making matters worse by interfering with domestic issues). Don't forget that the Clinton administration did nothing to stop a genocide in Rwanda (and no other nations dared to say anything about this genocide anyway!)

"The Hussein regime did attempt to assassinate Bush, Sr. when he was out of office and visiting Kuwait. They also failed to meet the demand we placed on them to avoid continuation of Gulf War I. They were also a terrorist government that supported other terrorist organizations, which were sworn enemies of the United States. Therefore, the Hussein regime overthrow was not preemptive."

My reply:

This is a very shaky demonstration of self-defense to say the least.
First of all, I would like to know more about the assassination attempt to Bush Sr. Anyway, even if there was evidence that Saddam H. ordered to kill him. This was more than 10 years ago! Saddam H. was also claiming that the US was attempting to have him killed one way or another. Remember the first bombing of Baghdad was aimed to kill Saddam H. in his palace.
About the terrorist organizations... Saddam H. and Osama Bin Laden were enemies! Osama Bin Laden's network was financed by the CIA in the 1980s (when he was fighting against the Soviet puppet government in Afghanistan). Bin Laden even wanted to defend Saudi Arabia against Saddam H. in 1990, after the Koweit invasion. What turned Bin Laden against USA was the first Gulf War. Please get more information from terrorism experts. These are all well-documented facts.
By the way, 2 years ago, Bush Jr. was setting up the new philosophy of "preemptive strikes". I guessed he did believe in these theories when he took the decision to attack Iraq. Therefore the main argument at that time was the claimed "probability that Iraq had WMDs and can use them against US"! No need to look for evidence of an Iraqi agression against USA. The Bush administration didn't need them to justify the war.

"One thing you and I will apparently continue to disagree on is the notion that sovereign governments who oppress their people are minding their own business. All innocent humans are equal, and no government has any business doing with them as they please. We do have a moral right to rescue the innocent."

My reply:

Yes, you are right and I will attempt to justify my position.
Compassion is fine. However the use of violence (war implies violence) to repair injustice (such as those that occur constantly in a dictatorship where there is no such thing as a rule of law) is controversial. It can only apply when other non-violent means (such as diplomacy, economic sanctions etc.) are powerless.
There is an inherent contradiction in the Bush admin.'s goals of "making democratic Iraq a model to follow in the Middle East". As democracy is a political system "by the people", a political system imposed by another nation (with the justification of doing it in the interest of these people) is non-democratic in essence. I already made this point and I'm sorry to say it again.
There are other issues such as the cultural gap between Christian America and the Muslim Middle-East. Even if the Americans believe that their political model is based on universal values (I believe it!), the Muslim nations have a different notion of what is political legitimacy. Take it as a fact: Only Turkey is close to being democratic. But Turkey already had experienced a significant political development after the First World War. The country became ruled by a secular political system. It is an exception in the Muslim world. Islam is not only a religion but also a political entity. Muslim religious leaders have always had strong political powers. How can you reconcile these local values with American-style democracy?_________________Sailom

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Debate on the Iraq war (continued)

So we should say we were wrong for overthrowing the Hussein regime and then leave it to the Iraqi people to defend themselves? There would be civil war and no hope for democracy if we leave now. I think we should finish the job by getting the government off the ground. Then, we can leave. When we leave, the bitterness resulting from occupation will dissipate and the Iraqi people will be greatful for what we did. I don't think that they could have ever pulled off democracy on their own when the Hussein regime was in power. That regime was just way too oppressive."War on Terror" is like "War on Drugs" (which is absurd) or "War on Poverty" (which is counterproductive). It is a government fight against things and not actual nations. We are at war with all international terrorist organizations, so we call it "War on Terror". The Hussein regime was a threat. They tried to assassinate one of our former presidents, they expressed extreme religious (though not fundamentalist) hatred against us, they provided incentives for suicide bombers in Israel (Who is Israel's equally hated biggest ally?), they took over a country for personal gain, and they supported Hamas and Hezballah. They had meetings with Al Qaeda representatives (What could that have been about? One thing.). Their WMD's were unaccounted for. They were very much a threat.I know we allied with them. Sometimes we ally with bad governments because world politics is a game of finding the least of all evils. We teamed up with the Soviet Union to take down the Nazis, and it's a damn good thing we did. The fact that our government didn't speak against an ally's terrible gassing of Kurds didn't mean we condoned it. Things are more complex than that. However, the gassing of Kurds proved their terrorist ways, and when they revealed themselves to be a threat to us, the gassing was another brick in the wall of justification for overthrow. I don't remember Bush trying to say that the Hussein regime was responsible for 9/11, and I watched the news constantly around that time. The Hussein regime had to go, and I don't think we should abandon the Iraqi people to civil war and permanent despair now.

Here is my reply to his comments:

Thanks for shifting the debate to some issues where we have some chances of agreeing on something!

"So we should say we were wrong for overthrowing the Hussein regime and then leave it to the Iraqi people to defend themselves?"Reply:
The problem is you focus on one logic: Saddam Hussein = Dictatorship Dictatorship = Evil Fighting Evil = Good US overthrowing Saddam Hussein = Good Therefore you limit the scope of the debate. Let us focus at the same time on this logic: Iraq = Independent Country (from foreign nations) Saddam Hussein = Iraqi Leader of that country USA = Foreign Nation (from the Iraqi point of view) US Army in Iraq = Occupation Army Yes, the following question: "Was it wise to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein?" is determinant for a reply on..."Should we leave it to the Iraqi people to defend themselves?"Reply:
No, it was not wise to invade Iraq (because US was neither attacked nor under threat and Iraqis were not asking for help against Saddam Hussein), therefore the US rule of Iraq is not legitimate. Should the coalition forces leave as soon as possible?"There would be civil war and no hope for democracy if we leave now. I think we should finish the job by getting the government off the ground. Then, we can leave. When we leave, the bitterness resulting from occupation will dissipate and the Iraqi people will be greatful for what we did. "Reply:
By acknowledging the US-led coalition made mistakes by invading and occupying the country, the next US president could open the door to a "real dialogue" with the Iraqis on the future of their country. Did you notice that the Shia Iraqi community is increasingly angry and ready to fight the US occupation? They should be happy that Saddam Hussein is gone. Shouldn't they? Next is the issue of the legitimacy of the transitional Iraqi government. It is fact that: 1> This government has no power over the coalition forces 2> This government is handpicked by the coalition and has not much legitimacy. However, now that the coalition forces commit themselves to help organize elections, this wouldn't be right to withdraw as soon as possible ("cut and run..."). That doesn't mean these soldiers have some legitimacy to use the force against the insurgency and this is an important point! As a principle, the coalition should show that the Iraqis are in charge of their own safety, not a coalition of foreign troops. An ideal situation would be that the coalition become an "adviser" to the new Iraqi police and army. By the way, Saddam Hussein might be gone but many of his former civil servants have a key role in the "new Iraq". Then the "bitterness of the occupation" might dissipate... "I don't think that they could have ever pulled off democracy on their own when the Hussein regime was in power. That regime was just way too oppressive. "Reply:
Once again, this is not US business to rule over the democratic development of independent states! What should be US business is to protect US citizens from terrorist threats, to prepare for self-defense if US is attacked, and to help the international communauty (other nations) avoid humanitarian disasters and genocide. "War on Terror" is like "War on Drugs" (which is absurd) or "War on Poverty" (which is counterproductive). It is a government fight against things and not actual nations. We are at war with all international terrorist organizations, so we call it "War on Terror". Reply:
That's good fun to play with words! It would be nice from the Bush administration to let the world know about these rethorical subtilities though. When I look at the news every morning, I really feel like the US army is also confused about this. It looks like they are waging a "real war"."The Hussein regime was a threat. They tried to assassinate one of our former presidents, they expressed extreme religious (though not fundamentalist) hatred against us, they provided incentives for suicide bombers in Israel (Who is Israel's equally hated biggest ally?), they took over a country for personal gain, and they supported Hamas and Hezballah."Reply:
Please remind me of the president assassination thing. I might have Alzheimer! I can't remember that. To be hated is one thing, to be an agressor is another thing. Now that we come to the issue of agressions on Israel, that would be useful if the US relationship with Israel was "free from bias". You see, when a country disobey to UN resolutions more than once, and when it attacks "terrorist leaders" in a foreign country, it would be nice that the USA joins the worldwide protest of the international communauty. This is not right to talk about "democracy" in the Middle East and then deny any explanations to these Arab states about the lack of respect for these principles from the Israeli government. Iraq's support of Hamas or Hezbollah was no more flagrant than the support from other Middle East nations such as Syria or Libya. Will the US invade these countries too. If the USA wants to be more "loved" by Arabs, why not showing more concern about "justice"? "I know we allied with them. Sometimes we ally with bad governments because world politics is a game of finding the least of all evils. We teamed up with the Soviet Union to take down the Nazis, and it's a damn good thing we did. The fact that our government didn't speak against an ally's terrible gassing of Kurds didn't mean we condoned it. Things are more complex than that. "Reply:
Thanks for that comment. It's exactly what I think with one little difference. Because "things are complex", you cannot expect to justify an invasion and occupation by saying "this is a bad political regime, let us free them from this evil". Your comment is typical of scepticism when taking the decision to go to war. Follow this logic and review all your past assertions. The fact that "things are complex" doesn't mean we shouldn't give up on ethical principles. It's exactly the opposite. It is the first step for understanding non-violence."However, the gassing of Kurds proved their terrorist ways, and when they revealed themselves to be a threat to us, the gassing was another brick in the wall of justification for overthrow. "Reply:
Wow! What a weird short-cut to justify a war! The gassing of kurds was an explicit human right violation (and what a big one). It should have led the US to protest straight away and condemn the Saddam Hussein regime for these acts... not 15 years later! "They" (the Saddam H. regime) didn't reveal themselves to be a threat to the US. This is a fact. It's time to move on."I don't remember Bush trying to say that the Hussein regime was responsible for 9/11, and I watched the news constantly around that time. "Reply:
"the tortuous - and still unproven - attempts to establish a chain of events from Sept 11 to him": New Strait Times - Malaysia - Sep 06, 2002 "The FBI's first lead investigator in the case, Jim Fox, concluded "Iraq was behind the World Trade Center bombing." There is also the fact, first doubted but now confirmed, that 9-11 ringleader Muhammad Atta did indeed meet with Iraqi intelligence agent Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani in Prague in April 2001.": Jerusalem Post - Israel - Sep 09, 2002 "Vice-President Dick Cheney led the field with doomsday warnings that the Iraqi leader could mount a September 11th-style attack on the US.": Financial Times - UK - Sep 09, 2002 "The US's move against Iraq follows from its new national security strategy, issued on September 17 last year, and the suspicion that Saddam was involved in 9/11.": Canberra Times - Australia - Feb 22, 2003 "Millions of Americans already believe that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 9/11 because statements by Bush have juxtaposed the Iraqi leader and the terrorist attacks over and over again.": Washington Post - USA - Mar 19, 2003 I think that's enough evidence! "The Hussein regime had to go, and I don't think we should abandon the Iraqi people to civil war and permanent despair now."Reply:
Same argument than before (Once again, this is not US business to rule over the democratic development of independent states, etc.)_________________Sailom

Here are some basic questions. Please give me answers! Is the Iraq war still a "just war" once we know: 1> There are no WMDs, Saddam Hussein was not a threat to US 2> The 9/11 terrorists were not Iraqi but Saoudians. 3> Iraqi people haven't called for US to free them from Saddam H. Is the Bush claim that US is helping install democracy in Iraq credible in that context? Next questions: About the "War against terror" 1> Was it correct to declare "war on terrorism" when terrorists are not an army for one particular country but plain murderers acting under political cover? 2> Why did the British, the French and the Spanish succeed in their past attempts to stop terrorist activities in the 1990s?_________________Sailom

Here is the reply from this person:

I'll tell you what... I'll answer your questions, but in return, I ask that you answer my one recurring question. After many, many pages of liberal dodges, Margaret is the only liberal who has had the intellectual courage to answer it. My question is this: What is a present, viable, nonviolent alternative to the way the Coalition is handling the situation in Iraq? Here are the answers you wanted: 1. We do not "know" that Saddam was not a threat or that he did not possess WMD's. We know for a fact that he did possess WMD's because we gave them to him when his regime was our ally against Iran. The WMD's were not fully accounted for as of the beginning of Gulf War II. Demonstrating the destruction of the WMD's we knew they had was the regim'es one way to avoid overthrow under the terms of the ceasefire that ended Gulf War I. They did not meet that demand, so they had no way to avoid overthrow. On that alone, Gulf War II, which was really a continuation of Gulf War I, was justified. The further justification is based on the fact that the Hussein regime had proven itself to be a terrorist organization that supported other terrorist organizations and was an enemy of the United States. They had taken over Kuwait, provided incentives for suicide bombers in Israel, shot missiles at Israel and Kuwait without provocation, supported Hamas and other terrorist enemies of the U.S., attempted to assassinate a former U.S. president, and committed mass rape, torture, killing, and other terrorist actions on the people of Iraq, including gassing thousands and thousands of Kurds with sarin gas (a WMD that we have found since the beginning of Gulf War II). (By the way, the fact that we have not found other WMD's since the beginning of Gulf War II does not prove their nonexistence any more than your not being able to find your car keys proves the nonexistence of your car keys. Also, we have found labs and materials for making WMD's. This situation is not a joke.) The two premises of your question are false, except for the fact that the question was hypothetical. In answering your question as a hypothetical regarding the first premis, my answer is still, "Yes." There were many justifications for the war. In regard to the second premis of your hypothetical, my answer would of course be, "No." However, that is a premis I highly disagree with, as I illustrated above. 2. Yes. We did not overthrow the Hussein regime under a belief that the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi. Bush vowed to go after governments that support terrorism. That included the Hussein regime. The fact that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi does not mean that their government automatically supported their horrible actions. If the hijackers had been Canadian, we would not be overthrowing the government of Canada. Similarly, the nationalities of the hijackers would not support overthrowing the Saudi government. 3. Yes. The Iraqi people could not publicly express support for an overthrow of the Hussein regime. The regime put people through shredders (literally), raped their family members in front of them, killed them, tortured them, or other things or combinations of such things for speaking out. They had the people of Iraq living in fear of breathing the wrong way. All the more reason to overthrow the Hussein regime. Note: Although most Iraqis hate the U.S. occupation (which I would too), they are glad that the horrible Hussein regime is gone. Wouldn't you be? 1. Yes. The list of terrorist groups is way too long to declare war on all of them by name. We are going after all of them. 2. For the same reasons we often did. Also, we are the world's leading liberators, humanitarians, and police, so we have more terrorists to deal with than those countries. The French government is a wuss government that doesn't have the power or the morals to do much that would piss off the evil bastards of the world. The same is generally true of the Spanish government, and they still got slammed by Al Qaeda. The French are hated by Al Qaeda too, despite their cowardly, inconsiderate ways. What is your answer to my question?_________________Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward... - John Kerry, 12/15/03

Here is my reply to his question plus some comments:

Non-violence practice should be the most important weapon of a soldier. That's what I believe, I'm going to tell you why. A war zone is a situation of uncertainty where most of the time, there seems to be peace, but actually, you are under threat to be killed. 1. Non-violence principles would dictate to consider the local population as victims of war and to seek their cooperation. 2. If you are under attack, take cover first and wait for confirmation where the agressors are. Attack the enemy when you know where he/she is and you are sure there are nobody else in the area than these agressors. In your counter-attack, try to take your opponents alive if it is still possible. 3. You and your mates are at risk to be killed at any time. You have the right to shoot the opponent to save your life. Are you surprised? This is non-violence. Non-violence doesn't mean NEVER using violence. It means acknowledging that non-violence works better that violence against "agression". You need to be brave and you need to have self-control. At political level, the most urgent task is to give authority to a legitimate Iraqi administration. In the current context of insurgency, it is not possible. Therefore, the next priority is to "win hearts and minds" by showing: 1. US authorities acknowledge publicly that there were wrong to attack Iraq without being under threat. 2. Ask for help from foreign nations (particularly muslim ones) to help reestablish a secure environment to organize elections.I understand that replying to your question is commenting on the quote from J. Kerry:"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward... - John Kerry, 12/15/03".

J. Kerry opposed the (undisputable) fact that Iraq is not part of the war against terror (Saddam Hussein is not Al Quaida etc.) with his belief that a victory in Iraq will be positive in the victory in the "war against terrorism". Whenever I will comment on something, I will let you know if I am convinced of my arguments or if I don't know enough to make a judgement. 1. The war against terrorism itself is a controversial endeavour. Not of course because acts of terrorism are morally wrong (killing innocents) but because terrorist networks are hidden (for good reasons!). 2. The war against Iraq is a divisive issue as it is not morally right - US was not attacked (no self-defense), the facts are the Iraqi population didn't call for help against Saddam Hussein (before March 2003), and even afterwards, the Iraqis as a whole consider themselves as "occupied". 3. A victory in Iraq will not defeat terrorism. I am 99% sure about this. The terrorists don't come from Iraq! (However they probably have some success in recruiting terrorists now that Iraq is occupied by a foreign nation). Why did J. Kerry say something like this? He was flying with the wind of optimism following the arrest of Saddam Hussein. At least G.W.Bush does have a point when he says that J. Kerry keeps changing his mind. That doesn't mean G.W.Bush is a better president (by the way). Now, I will comment on your replies:"We do not "know" that Saddam was not a threat or that he did not possess WMD's. We know for a fact that he did possess WMD's because we gave them to him when his regime was our ally against Iran. "I don't understand how come "we do not know". Here are a few facts: Early in 2003, the Bush administration tried very hard to convince the world that Saddam Hussein was a significant threat through these WMDs. Claims were made that there was significant intelligence on these WMDs. Then, the Bush administration constantly downplayed or plainly ignored calls from weapons inspectors to give them more time to finish their job. These facts in themselves should be enough to convince you that the Bush administration did deceive the American people (and a big part of the world) and that it had dishonest intentions. Starting war is an extraordinary decision that needs strong moral justifications. Saying "we do not know" is irrelevant. A war may be waged only when "we do know" that it is morally justified. By the way, the evil Saddam Hussein regime could not have been at the same time "an ally" against Iran and "a foe" after the invasion of Koweit. This is embarrassing... How come USA made a pact with the devil?"They had taken over Kuwait, provided incentives for suicide bombers in Israel, shot missiles at Israel and Kuwait without provocation, supported Hamas and other terrorist enemies of the U.S., attempted to assassinate a former U.S. president, and committed mass rape, torture, killing, and other terrorist actions on the people of Iraq, including gassing thousands and thousands of Kurds with sarin gas (a WMD that we have found since the beginning of Gulf War II)." Yes, they did at least part of these things, and that's why there was a first Gulf War, supported by the UN, and even supported by "coward nations" like France. There was a clear moral case to wage a war and it was waged. Are you aware that the gassing of thousands of kurds were done when Saddam H. was an "ally" against Iran? Are you aware that the US administration knew it and did nothing concrete to protest against these acts? When stating all the crimes of Saddam H., be careful to the time and the context. I don't know all the facts about the agressions of Iraq against Israel, wasn't it done during the first Golf War?"Yes. We did not overthrow the Hussein regime under a belief that the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi. Bush vowed to go after governments that support terrorism. That included the Hussein regime. The fact that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi does not mean that their government automatically supported their horrible actions. If the hijackers had been Canadian, we would not be overthrowing the government of Canada. Similarly, the nationalities of the hijackers would not support overthrowing the Saudi government."You forget to mention that before the start of the war, the Bush administration constantly gave the illusion that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, I don't have quotes available but I could find them. What you say about the nationality of the terrorists and the support / lack of support from some governments are self-evident. However you don't reply to my question. If you do believe that because the Saddam H.'s regime didn't condemn the 9/11 attacks then they were helping them.... Well, I cannot convince you! "Yes. The Iraqi people could not publicly express support for an overthrow of the Hussein regime. The regime put people through shredders (literally), raped their family members in front of them, killed them, tortured them, or other things or combinations of such things for speaking out. They had the people of Iraq living in fear of breathing the wrong way. All the more reason to overthrow the Hussein regime. Note: Although most Iraqis hate the U.S. occupation (which I would too), they are glad that the horrible Hussein regime is gone. Wouldn't you be? "Yes, I would be happy to be in democracy, but this is not the case of the Iraqis (yet). Now, you come to the current logic behind the alleged legitimacy of the war and occupation of Iraq. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a dictator, yes, he did murder opponents, like most dictators. This is not enough to wage a war from the perpective of a foreign nation. Before you blast the screen of your computer, let me give you an example. Let us imagine that a politician is elected president of the USA, for many reasons, this president is accumulating so much power that he has now installed a dictatorship. Is there anyone challenging his power? he has him/her killed. A coalition of "compassionate" muslim powers decide to intervene and help install democracy in the USA by invading USA, killing all US military opposing their action, getting rid of all the political system and civil servants behind the former regime. Chances are that most Americans will not like it. Why? They are occupied by a Foreign army. These occupiers have a different religion and a different culture. Besides, some Americans may have been part of the political system and part of the US army because they thought they had no choice to make a living, and because they believed in defending the "national interest" of the state. In the process of "installing democracy", this coalition of Muslim countries do not hesitate to use violence to "root out the evil". How would you react as an American? "1. Yes. The list of terrorist groups is way too long to declare war on all of them by name. We are going after all of them. "You don't reply to my question. Going after terrorists is the right thing to do, just like arresting murderers is the right thing to do. My question was about the strategic mistakes of saying "we are at war" after 9/11. This was not a war. This was the first time, a terrorist act managed to hit so many people at the same time. The only weapons of the terrorists were knives. Think about it. "2. For the same reasons we often did. Also, we are the world's leading liberators, humanitarians, and police, so we have more terrorists to deal with than those countries. The French government is a wuss government that doesn't have the power or the morals to do much that would piss off the evil bastards of the world. The same is generally true of the Spanish government, and they still got slammed by Al Qaeda. The French are hated by Al Qaeda too, despite their cowardly, inconsiderate ways. " USA is the first economic and military power in the world, the responsability of the USA is greater than any other nation because of this power precisely. No need to glorify it. It's a fact. It's not a political will. I'm talking about the political will to use this massive resources wisely. Please be more specific about the "sins" of the French. Opposing the first economic and military power during the UN debates was the opposite of cowardice. It was very brave. The French government was taking a serious risk to be isolated and side-lined. It was also reflecting the European views that there was no case for invading Iraq. "The same is generally true of the Spanish government, and they still got slammed by Al Qaeda. The French are hated by Al Qaeda too, despite their cowardly, inconsiderate ways. " Once again, European public opinon is against the war, not only their governments. Yes, Al-Qaida hates the French. The French didn't wait for the Americans to act against the fundamentalist terrorist networks. Please make some research on the Algerian fundamentalists, the potential impact of fundamentalist Islam in the French society etc. To be honest, trying to defend the decision to invade and occupy Iraq is a pretty hopeless cause. Why not arguing that even though the Americans were wrong to attack, there is no other political legitimacy in Iraq, so they have to stay until there is such political legitimacy? That's a more rewarding debate. By the way, as this web-site is dedicated to the promotion of non-violence values. I have to say that I do believe that non-violence is central to the struggle against terrorist networks. Because they are killing innocents, terrorists are losing credibility. The use of violence must be used against those who are terrorists only (if they don't surrender). The most important factor for "victory" would be to gain the trust of local populations. Inversely, every time an innocent Iraqi die from US fire, moral respectibility is given to those groups who support terrorism. You seem to have some confusion between non-violence and cowardice. Have a look at my own web-site (with links to Gandhi and Luther King philosophies):http://sailom.blogspot.com_________________Sailom

A few questions can be asked about non-violence:
1. Is non-violence cowardice?
2. What power has non-violence to stop violence?
3. What power has non-violence to beat "evil"?
4. Isn't history and social change driven by violence (war/revolution)?

Here is what I think after reading these web-sites:
1. Non-violence is the opposite of cowardice. It is letting your opponent know that you disagree without showing that you may strike back if attacked. In other words, you expose yourself to being hurt.
However, If I don't strike back simply because I don't have the ability to win over my opponent, I am simply protecting myself and I will probably no longer say that I disagree with this person. If I would have the ability to win over my opponent, I would do it anyway. Why? Because of my fear to be hurt, I'd rather silence my opponent through violence.
This is cowardice.

2. The power of non-violence can be very high if I know how to communicate my ideas. Why? By controlling myself and avoiding violence, my protest remains credible. I don't do anything illegal and I show that I believe in what I do. Non-violence can be even more powerful nowadays thanks to the media and modern communication technology.

3. Non-violence's power to "beat evil" can be demonstrated that way. Nobody is fundamentally evil. Nobody can pretend to know the absolute truth about something as our knowledge has limits. One conclusion to this logic is winning our opponents over is preferable to winning over our opponents (quote from a US policeman following Kingian philosophy). If our opponents get killed, they will not criticize us anymore but if they knew something about the "Truth", then we would have lost one opportunity to "beat evil" with them.
The opposite logic is violence causes more violence. By trying to eradicate one "evil", we create more of them.

4. Is violence the motor of history (social change)? This is a difficult question. However, we should remember that the media only remembers outbursts of violence in world history, it tends to underestimate the impact of non-violent actions on social change. Let us think about the victories of Gandhi in India, M. Luther King in the USA, Father Popielusko in Poland or Nelson Mandela in South Africa. These victories did create a lot of social change.
What about the second world war and the victories of democracies over Hitler? For sure, massive military operations helped win over Hitler. However these operations were self-defense operations against widespread military invasions. Besides, we will never know to what extent some acts of non-violence did have an impact during the conflict. I would just point to one remark: The nazi ideology was a culture of violence. This culture of violence made the nazi lose their credibility in the occupied territories. Non-cooperation of the local population was the norm in most of these territories.

I would conclude by saying that Gandhi was not a pacifist. He would rather use violence that being a coward. He was just using non-violence whenever it was still possible. This can be read in the following website:
http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/momindex.htm

Thursday, September 23, 2004

What is ethic?

Saturday, September 18, 2004

In a number of key issues such as war and peace, “democracy” and “social order”, ethic takes a central place. Now, it would be useful to find a simple definition for “ethic”.
Ethic is defined as: “a system of accepted beliefs which control behaviour, especially such a system based on morals:”. (Cambridge Advance Learner's Dictionary)
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=26403&dict=CALDHowever this definition doesn’t explain where these “accepted beliefs” come from. If these beliefs are widely different from country to country, or even, from community to community, then any ethical issues are reduced to an assessment of such beliefs without trying to understand what are the reasons behind these ethical guidelines.
A form of “universal” definition of ethic seems desirable. Because each country has its own culture, this definition must be simple so as all mankind can agree with it.
As children, we often hear that we should act towards others the same way we would want them to act towards us. This is a great principle and it comes close to defining what ethic is about.
Another rather similar principle that is often heard is that our own individual freedoms are limited by other people’s freedom. In other words, we cannot impose people to give up their own freedom simply because we would have more freedom.
In all these principles, relationships between people are the keys to ethical behavior.
I would personally define ethic as a “choice of behaving in a way that avoid harming anyone”

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

saving is freedom

Today, I want to talk about freedom. However, I am particularly interested in what is freedom as defined in economic terms.
Consumption as opposed to saving (later used in investment activities) can be analyzed in terms of consuming freedom or buying freedom.

Why? Wealth is the accumulation of savings plus the accumulated returns on invested savings. This wealth is our “physical capital” that can be used for any projects that we wish to launch. This wealth allows us to make decisions without the interference of others such as creditors/shareholders.
Therefore, someone who is consuming more than he can afford (who doesn’t take into account that he has scarce resources) is virtually enslaving himself/herself through his/her excessive spending level.

We may therefore conclude that “consumerism” leads people to slavery. Excessive consumption may lead people to become greedy for any form of income without considering if he/she deserves to earn more income. This leads definitely to the break-up of communities as people sacrifice their social bondage by seeking more and more income in the hope he/she can get away with his/her excessive spending.

A similar way of thinking can be discussed with “human capital” The accumulation of knowledge - through a formal education process and/or self-teaching and/or learning-by-doing – eventually leads people to becoming “free” individuals.
That wealth of knowledge allows them to having access to more income without spending more time on productive activities.

A controversial conclusion may be that to access more and more freedom, someone needs to limit consumption spending to absolutely necessary outlays. An even more controversial conclusion is that people needs to reduce leisure activities to a minimum.

It is becoming necessary to make a distinction between freedom and happiness. Is it worth getting that much freedom at the expense of the genuine happiness that one gets when consuming and having leisure activities? Isn’t it dangerous for mental health – or even physical health – to become such an ascetic? What about the damage on the overall economy of the community when people stop consuming? Off-course, the economy may well adapt and supply mostly capital goods and knowledge-related goods.

There is definitely a right balance to pursue. It is worth noting that many philosophers in the past have defined true happiness as having an ascetic life-style (non-consumption) and/or valuing education as much as hard work. In that sense, a free person may therefore be defined as a hard-working ascetic craving for knowledge

Growth economics

There is a branch of economics called growth economics. The aim is to explain why some countries are quickly getting richer and richer while others remain poor. It aims to study these countries in the very long run (at least more than 10 years, and some even say at least half a century). It’s interesting to get to know what is the main measure of the ability to grow? Is it the Gross Domestic Product in itself? (Gross Domestic Product is measured in volume. Let’s forget about inflation and monetary concerns for the moment).
Some people worry about giving job opportunities to all workers. It’s a fair concern when one knows the huge social damage and waste of “human resources” that is unemployment.
Many “radical” thinkers have often blamed technology and widespread machinery for destroying jobs.
I definitely disagree with this idea. I think Schumpeter was one of the first economist to underline the role of technology in growth.

(GDP/(Jobs*Working-Time)) is called “Output per worker-hour” and commonly defined as labor productivity.
Therefore a country can achieve high economic growth with:
à More and more people working in the country
à Someone working in the country is willing to work harder and harder year after year by working more time during the year.
à Someone working in the country is managing to be more productive because he benefits from more infrastructures, or a better and better technology and knowledge.

Someone who says: “more technology means less jobs” would argue GDP remains the same over time and the only way to give enough jobs for all the labor force is to cut down on either technology or working-time.
What is definitely wrong in this way of thinking is to fail to understand GDP as a dependant variable from each worker’s productivity, the time this person works and how many people works. Instead it considers that employment depends on the total volume of production (GDP), workers’ productivity and their working time. Then it would seem reasonable to cut on working-time and on productivity by barring access to technological change. In other words, as the goal of the society is to ensure everyone has a job (everyone who wishes to have a job), best thing to do is to come back to stone-age technology and ask workers to work as little as possible (less working-time).
Off-course, the consequence of such a decision is to make people poorer as the whole production of goods and services are not enough to fulfill basic needs of people.

A more positive approach for allowing technological progress is to acknowledge that a more productive worker allow to decrease the price of what is sold (benefit to the customer), or increase profit (benefit to the owners/shareholders), or increase wages (benefit to the worker).
Actually, all of these events are likely to occur. The first one will be the decrease of prices due to returns of scales allowing for competing better and attract more customers, increasing profits and increasing wages to keep knowledgeable workers among the staff.

Economic growth appears to me like a sum of microeconomic events. That makes it much more human and more realistic to me.

The same way of thinking applies to standards of living by adjusting the size of the economy by the size of the population.

The key difference between growth of an economy and growth of standards of living is that it is not having more and more jobs that matters, what matters is that the number of jobs increase faster than the number of people.

A general conclusion about all of this:
People need to have some rest. Increases in working-time will reach a point when it will affect health and productivity. Therefore, working-time is not a “sustainable” factor of growth.
What about increases in the number of jobs compared with number of people? Too young people won’t work. Too old people won’t work either. Are women able to work?
Demographic trends matter!
Obviously, increasing life expectancy benefits growth. If people have a longer life, they can have a longer education and work longer… the society has both better educated workers and better experienced ones.
One major issue in a country with a longer and longer life expectancy is that people still want to retire at the same age than before.
Therefore, it increases the ratio of retired people compared with workers. It decreases the ratio of jobs/people.
A necessary social change is an increase in retirement age that matches the increase in life expectancy.

Just like working-time, having more jobs for the same total number of people is a limited tool for growth. What is left?
Labor productivity is the key to growth of standards of living. It comes from:
-Having more infrastructure (factories and machines) available per each worker
-A better technology and more skills used by each worker

The first contribution to labor productivity is “Having more infrastructure”:
Are people able to save their resources in order to finance these infrastructures?

The second contribution: Technology and more skills:Do people have incentives to spend resources on research? Education of people?

Imperialism

Sunday, March 07, 2004

What were the causes of colonization of territories by Western countries in the late 18th and 19th century?
I think I remember that I learned at schools that first came the religious westerners (the priests) who thought it was their duty to civilize “savage” “indigenes”.
Then came the merchants who understood that these territories had valuables natural and primary resources and that they could buy (or barter) goods well bellow their market value in Western cities.
What brought a military expedition against local authorities? I don’t know for sure but it might well be because of property rights.
Westerners developed a sophisticated rule of property laws that made possible the development and use of technologies and therefore growing wealth.
Probably, non-Western civilization didn’t have such rules and didn’t apply them to their new Western customers/employers. Many cultural clashes probably took place at that time.
In any case, a Mercantilist economic philosophy would have justified taking over vast territories in order to control more and more natural resources. These forms of biased trade relations could only bring colonial wars.
Indeed, if such states of mind were common, many current critics of the Bush (US) administration may wonder if it is a common worry for oil dependency and the related “national” US interest that were the true motives of the Iraq war.
Off-course, mercantilism has long be proved to be wrong as a country like Japan became a major industrialized country with virtually no natural resources. The Japanese just import what they don’t produce and export finished goods thanks to raw materials they have imported. It may also help understand Japanese military past in their lack of trust for trade to achieve national prosperity. These ways of thinking would have led them to justify colonizing Asia with a national sense of being a “master’s race” somewhat similar to Western “civilizing” duties.

Is selfishness wrong?

Saturday, March 06, 2004

In practice, we should mind our own business.
In theory, we should connect with the whole universe,

What looks best: the theory or the practice?
The theory looks attractive but unrealistic because it is materially impossible to connect with all that exists (at least one person can’t).
Pure practice appears to be unrealistic as a connection between a human being and the air he is breathing is unavoidable, due to survival instincts... (He may be disturbed if he/she doesn’t have air.)
At the same time, a human being is a “social animal” who basically understands the need to connect with other people around him in order to achieve something. Therefore, even a “practical” person would acknowledge a need to get relationships with other people.

What about the attractiveness of theory? Well, a theorist would quickly acknowledge that as connecting with the whole universe is not feasible for one individual, he/she will be indifferent to most things around him/her. Being indifferent means:
à Not trying to be aware of the existence of something
à Even if the existence is known, no “resources” are used in order to know more about “it” or to know more about related events.
Therefore a theorist would acknowledge that some degree of selfishness affects all mankind. And it cannot be otherwise.
Adam Smith (economist) made a basic economic rule that people pursue their own interests and the common interest of groups of people is best achieved by letting them pursue their own interests (Adam Smith, (…) the Wealth of Nations). It is a fact that rapid economic growth in some areas is often accompanied by a social change in the form of more selfishness.
This statement look pretty much like pursuing our own interests is the practical thing to do. Does it?
Well, no.

After explaining these ideas to my wife, I came to realize that the consensus of “connecting with the whole universe” and “minding your own business” is to determine what matters most – for the individual – among all the events around him/her. This individual is aware that being indifferent is safe but “unproductive”. Therefore he will only get involved in events if he can identify clearly a positive outcome for his own interests. Then, I may say that tending towards the ideal “theoretical” goal of connecting with the whole universe is a matter of being able to identify interconnected past or future events that lead to our own personal interests.

Selfishness is a negative feature. It can be described as:
Refusing to acknowledge that events may affect personal interests one way or another and act…
In a broader sense, it is refusing to acknowledge that the society (group of people who have common outcome) benefits personal interests, and therefore that personal contribution to the society does benefit you.

I am going to change of issue…
I want to talk about the fact that the most urgent “connections” to be made by people is with all human beings with no exceptions.
This idea will comfort a genuine human rights activist in her/his work!
It is the fact that human beings have more in common with one another that with any other things that exist.

I remember the movie called “La Guerre du Feu”, (The Fire War).
A group of humans living about 50,000 years ago are under threat to be eaten by another specie: Wolves. They are aware that wolves are scared of fire. Therefore they try to find fire and preserve it but they don’t know how to produce it. One day they lose fire. Wolves kill and eat up many of them. When an “elite” group of humans are sent to find fire, they discover the existence of another group of humans. This second group is already organized as a tribe with some very basic technology. And there, they learn how to produce fire and a new era starts from them.

What I learned from this story is that the human society was imagined to have started when humans had the technology to avoid being eaten by other species and also gained consciousness that eating other humans is wrong.
From there, humanity was delivered from its survival instincts that consume all his available resources and started to build up a more and more sophisticated society.

Let’s make a big leap forward and say that humanity is not totally free from survival concerns because of 2 big issues:
à Diseases
à War
à Natural disasters

Progress against diseases and natural disasters are being made very quickly for the past few centuries.
However, what about war?
There may be less victims of war. But is it the point?

Other species don’t kill one another. They learn how to acknowledge who is the owner of a territory and local resources and don’t try to kill other species in order to get ownership of a territory and its resources.

Human beings still do such things under political cover.
Why not trying to achieve a total ban on killings of other human beings?

Within a short timeframe, a society would need to find incentives to keep law and order among all members.
If a society doesn’t have any police force, some members may feel under threat because they are weaker. And this is civil war and the destruction of the “society”.
A respected and genuine police force is therefore necessary. But is killing necessary?
Yes, it may be, if one person or a group of person attempts to murder other persons without being a policeman…
However, killing the murderer is not an incentive if we consider that human beings are not a threat to other ones in principle. They become such threats due to events affecting their personal interests and their own education standards.I conclude the aim of any social science is to help implement a world free of “inter-human” killing. There is no doubt such a society would achieve greater things than the present ones.

Philosophy

Saturday, March 06, 2004
This is just personal reflection and it is not a primary goal to publish them one day!
In the past, I have written songs and I still hope to compose many more during my life. However, I have reached a point of time where I realized that creating something is important no matter what tool one may use. My background of economic studies and practice may appear obvious when reading these lines. I also try to know more ways of thinking.